LexGURA SINGH versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A GURA SINGH v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN DECEMBER 6, 2000 B [K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI JJ.] Penal Code, 1872-Section 302- Conviction of-Prosecution's case based on extra judicial confession-All witnesses closely related to the appellant-Confession made immediately after the occurrence and not C procured under any undue influence. coercion or pressure-Main witnesses turned hostile-But voluntary disclosures statements of other prosecution witnesses led to recovery of the weapons of offence and other incriminating articles- Held, conviction based on the testimony of other witnesses is justified. D Extra judicial confession-Witness did not concur oniy on a post event detail -Witness declared hostile by the prosecution-Court gave permission to the prosecutor to cross-examine the witness- Held, witnesses not turned hostile-Further, witness was wrongly permitted to be cross-examined- - Evidence Act 1872 section 154. E Evidence Act. 1872-Sections 27 and 45-Recovery of sheet and other items-On basis of disclosure statement of accused Sheet and other items stained with blood ·-Due to lapse of time serologist failed to determine origin of blood-Non-mentioning of the dimensions of the stains of the blood on the sheet and other articles---Held, the accused cannot claim any benefit. Appellant was committed to the sessions court for trial under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was based upon the extra judicial confession. After examining the prosecution witnesses, the trial court convicted the appellant and awarded life imprisonment. Appellant filed an appeal. It was contended that as the main witnesses turned hostile, the conviction based upon their testimony was not justified, but High Court dismissed it. Hence, this appeal. Dismissing the appeal the Court HELD: I.I. Extra-judicial confession, if true and voluntary can be relied upon by the court to convict the accused for the commission of the crime 408 Gl:RA Sl"'UH v STAii·: OF RAJAS IHA"! 409 alleged. Despite inherent weakness of extra judicial confession as an item A of evidence, it cannot be ignored when shown that such confession was made before a person who has no reason to state falsely and to whom it is made in the circumstances which tend to support the statement. 1412-E] Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, 11954] SCR 1098; Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab. AIR (1975) SC 1320; :Varayan Singh B v. State of MP., AIR (1985) SC 1678; Kishore Chandv. State of HP .. AIR (1990) SC 2140; Ba/dev Raj v. State of Haryana, AIR (1991) SC 37; Piara Singh v. State of Punjab. AIR (1977) SC 2274 and Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey & Anr., JT (1992) 3 SC 270, referred to. 1.2. In the instant case, PW 5 was declared hostile. The appellant made extra judicial confession to PW 7 when he was arrested by the police and any confession made by him thereafter, is inadmissible in evidence. Thus, no reliance can be placed upon their testimony for the purposes of deciding as to whether the appellant had made the extra judicial confession or not. The time, the manner and the circupistances prove that the appellant had made a voluntary extra judicial confession before the witness without any fear, favour or coercion. 1414-B, C, DI c D 1.3. The prosecution witness did not concur only on a post-event detail made by the public prosecutor. Therefore, it was too insufficient for the public E prosecutor to proclaim that the witness made a volteface and became totally hostile to the prosecution. Further the permission granted by the trial court to cross-exa.mine allegedly on the ground of his being hostile was wrongly permitted. More so, the permission granted 'll.!Jd utilised for cross-examination was limited to the extent of the time of lodging the first information report and not with respect to the factum of his deposition in so far as it relates F to the making of extra judicial confession by the appellant. 1418-D; 414-Gf 1.4. There was sufficient evidence even in the absence of testimony of PW 5 and 7 to hold that the appellant had made a voluntary extra judicial confession before PWs 2 and 6 without undue influence, pressure, promise G or inducement and conviction based on these testimony is justified. The witnesses are closely related to the appellant in whom, under the normal circumstances, he would have confided, hoping help, protection and being safeguarded. The confession was made i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.